Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Judgment/Judgment-044
Last-Modified: 1999/05/27

138. Also in regard to the activity of the Accused
concerning Jews in the Eastern Occupied Territories, the
Wannsee Conference is a safe point of reference, for there
the representative of the Rosenberg ministry, set up to run
these areas, was also present.  Since there Heydrich's
authority received recognition by all those present, without
territorial limits, it obviously applied to those areas as
well, and with it the authority of the Accused as Referent
for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question.  Heydrich
himself jealously guarded his authority in the Eastern
Territories as is seen from his letter (T/301), in which he
demands that his representatives be given the right to
participate in the decision as to who is a Jew, for the
purposes of applying police measures in those areas (see
also T/299; N/13).  The decisive proof of the activity of
the Accused in the Eastern Occupied Territories is to be
found in the matter of the "Brown File."  These were
detailed directives drafted by the Ministry for the Eastern
Occupied Territories, to arrange certain matters connected
with the administration of these territories (T/296).  It
seems that these directives were prepared separately for the
Reich Ostland Administration (the Baltic countries) and for
the Administration of the Ukraine.  The Ukrainian draft was
passed on to other authorities concerned, amongst them
Himmler, for them to state their point of view.  The
approach to Himmler is explained by the fact that on 17 July
1941 Hitler decided that police security measures in the
Eastern Occupied Territories should be in the hands of
Himmler, as  Reichsfuehrer-SS and Head of the German Police
(T/176).  Heydrich, in Himmler's name, replies on 10 January
1942 with certain reservations as to the contents of the
draft, and in connection with the directives in Jewish
affairs he writes:

     "Since the Central Administration for Jewish Affairs is
     in the hands of the police, I suggest printing the
     directives on matters of Jewish questions, as laid down
     in the version of the Head Office for Reich Security
     (official in charge: SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann)."

Exhibit T/297, which is before us, is a copy of a part of
Heydrich's letter, the part dealing with Jewish questions.
It seems that the letter was divided up at the Ministry for
the Eastern Occupied Territories, and each department
received the part of concern to it.  (Dr. Wetzel, the man
who dealt with this subject in the ministry, received the
part concerning the Jews).

In his letter, Heydrich referred to the previous version of
the RSHA.  In fact, the language used in the letter shows
that earlier discussions had already been held in connection
with the Brown File for Ostland, and it seems that the RSHA
had already drafted its proposals in regard to the Ostland.
Further to this letter, Bilfinger, of Group IIA
(Organization and Law) of the RSHA, sends to Wetzel the
draft directives in connection with the Jewish Question, as
approved by Heydrich (T/298).  The letter is marked with the
reference number SIIA2, the Section of the RSHA dealing with
matters of legislation (see T/99).  The directives
themselves attached to the letter do not bear a signature or
a file number, and they have a handwritten note at the top:
"New draft of December 1941."  It appears that these were
the directives which had been prepared prior to Heydrich's
letter of 10 January 1942 for the Brown File of Ostland, and
they were repeated for the Ukrainian file.  The lack of any
reference and signature is understandable, because this was
only a copy of former directives.

The Accused maintained categorically that he had had no part
in the preparation of these directives.  It is his
assumption that they were prepared in Department II of the
RSHA (Session 100, Vol. IV, pp. xxxx2-8).  This version is
immediately contradicted by Heydrich's unequivocable
statement, included in letter T/297, that the Accused is the
official in charge on behalf of the RSHA to draft directives
concerning Jewish affairs.  Section IIA 2 in the RSHA might
have acted to centralize all material in connection with the
formal drafting for the Brown File, but it stands to reason
that the legal department did not lay down the substantive
contents of the directives concerned with police action.
This is within the scope of the authority of the official
dealing with the matter itself, that is the Accused, as was
stated by Heydrich.  We, therefore, find that the directives
attached to the letter T/298 were composed by the Accused or
in his Section.  The general policy of these directives
testifies to exceeding harshness in the treatment of Jews,
as compared with the policy outlined in the proposals by the
Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories.  Whilst the
ministry proposed that, in taking measures against the Jews,
economic considerations should come first, the Accused's
directives insist that no such considerations should be
allowed to interfere with the implementation of the Final
Solution, meaning extermination (pp. 1, 3).  To the list of
Jews who came to these areas from other places, the Accused
adds Jews from the Reich (sent to the East on his
initiative) (supra, pp. 1, 2).  The ministry proposed a
gradual ousting of Jews from the cultural activities of the
rest of the population; the Accused decides: "Cultural
activity by Jews amongst the rest of the population is out
of the question."

Another grave matter, viz., the introduction of
extermination by gas in the Eastern Occupied Territories
will be dealt with in detail in its turn.  Here, it is to be
observed that Wetzel, who prepared the drafts of the letters
in the matter (T/308), emphasizes that the Accused, as the
RSHA official dealing with Jewish affairs, expressed his
consent to the introduction of the new method for the
extermination of Jews.  This is further proof of the fact
that the Accused's scope of activity also included the said
areas in the East.
The Accused also dealt with the matter of Jews of foreign
nationality in these areas, as he did in the
Generalgouvernement area.  The instructions included in the
above-mentioned letters T/310 and T/784, were also addressed
to the Commanders of the Security Police and the SD in
Ostland and in the Ukraine.  He also dealt with individual
cases of such foreign nationals.  A long struggle developed
for the life of the Jewess Jenny Cozzi, of Italian
nationality, who lived in the Riga Ghetto (T/348-T/353).
Influential Italian circles intervened on her behalf, but to
no avail: The chapter was sealed with a short and ominous
statement by the Accused, dated 25 September 1943 (T/354),
saying that,

     "In view of the changes which, in the meantime, have
     taken place in the political situation in Italy" (the
     reference is to the Badoglio coup) "I refrain from
     going any further into the matter.  I have given
     instructions that the Jewess Cozzi should be housed,
     for the time being, in the Riga concentration camp."

139. A further question arises with regard to the Accused's
activities in the East, as to whether he was directly
connected with the murders committed by the Operations
Units, apart from the handing over of Jews to Nebe and
Rasch, of whom we have already spoken.  The Accused denied
the existence of any connection of this kind (T/37, p.
1119).  At the same time, he admitted that he was present at
a gathering of Operations Units' men on the eve of the war
against Russia, and, as will appear later (Section 163), the
Operations Units' task in regard to the extermination of the
Jews was discussed there.  Here, therefore, one can see the
first contact between the Accused and the Operations Units.
This contact continued through the receipt of reports on the
activities of the Operations Units from June 1941 onwards.
At a date not later than September 1941, the Accused himself
visited Minsk, on orders from Mueller, and saw an Operations
Unit in action at the pits (Section 120 and Section 166
infra), and on his return he reported to Mueller on what he
had seen.

We know from Ohlendorf's sworn affidavit (T/312) that the
Operations Units were under the command of Heydrich, in his
capacity as head of the RSHA, and the question arises as to
whether the line of command between Heydrich and the
commanders of the Operations Units passed through the
Accused.

On this point, evidence against the Accused was given by
Justice Musmanno, who testified to conversations which he
had at the time in Nuremberg with Schellenberg, of the RSHA,
in the course of his investigations about Hitler's final
fate.  He heard from Schellenberg that the latter had been
present, together with the Accused, at the above gathering,
when Heydrich and Streckenbach, head of the Personnel
Department of the RSHA, gave instructions to the men of the
Operations Units (Session 39, Vol. II, pp. 712-713).
Schellenberg added that the Accused personally supervised
the activities of the Operations Units in regard to the
extermination of Jews and controlled these operations
(supra, pp. 714). This last statement by Schellenberg with
regard to the Accused's duties in relation to the Operations
Units, is a far-reaching one, but it was made in very
general language by a man who was a war criminal and was
himself implicated in the activities of the Operations
Units, and we do not have any other corroborative evidence
of this statement.  Accordingly, we refrain, out of caution,
from basing findings of fact upon this version of
Schellenberg's.

Additional evidence against the Accused is to be found in
the evidence of Noske at the Einsatzgruppen trial (T/307).
Noske was himself a unit commander in the Operations Units
and worked from June 1942 onwards in the RSHA, collecting
reports from the East.  He gave evidence that, from the
spring of 1942, Operations Units' reports on the killing of
Jews were transmitted directly to the Accused in his Section
IVB4, where these reports were collected.  In our view, this
statement provides a sufficient basis for drawing
conclusions, especially as the Accused himself has not
disputed the accuracy of Noske's testimony.  This matter is
dealt with in his Statement T/37, pp. 2950-2963, and though
the Accused alleges there that he does not remember that his
Section collected the reports on the slaughter of Jews, his
final reaction to Noske's description is (supra, at p.
2963):  "...I must say that it [the description] is
substantially correct - that I cannot deny."

On p. 2962 supra, he also admits that it is obvious that the
Section, which collected the reports, also prepared
summaries of them, for the use of its superiors.

Accordingly, we find that the Accused was in contact with
the Operations Units from the commencement of their
activities.  From the spring of 1942, the Accused began to
be active in connection with the issue of operational
directives to these Groups, by collecting the material
relating to the extermination of Jews and preparing
summaries thereof.  The preparation of summaries was
obviously intended to be of assistance to those who had
authority from time to time to decide upon the continuation
of the activities of the Operations Units.  At a later date,
we find further activity on the part of the Accused, with
regard to the Operations Units.  The reference is to the
letter T/310, dated 5 March 1943, which we have already
mentioned in discussing the Generalgouvernement area.  This
letter, which referred, as it will be remembered, to the
fate of Jews of foreign nationality, is also addressed to
Operations Units B and D.  This is proof that at that time
the Accused's Section also dealt with transmitting
instructions to the Operations Units.  The instructions in
letter T/784, dated 23 September 1943, on the same subject,
are also addressed, inter alia, to the commander of
Operations Unit B.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor